Forum Topic

London Irish - the Boys are Back in Town?

It's really great to hear that London Irish are getting the backing to return to professional rugby and that west London is their preferred base.As far as I am aware the Loftus Road pitch is now deemed too narrow so Brentford's stadium may be the only option. As the previous arrangement seemed to work so well, it is hard to see an argument against a return.It would be great to see them in the URC as games against the Irish provinces would be massive and it would be brilliant to walk to watch South African stars. However I am guessing that floating this possibility is a way of putting pressure on the English league to fasttrack them back to the top division.

Francis Rowe ● 7d31 Comments

I was assuming that Peter Cozens was accurate in his estimate of £600k from London Irish which is only 20% of the referenced £2.9M.The FA won the bid to host the Women's 2022 Euros and they paid clubs to host games, not UEFA.Your figure of £1.5m from food and drink at the ground seems to be completely speculative given a) you don't know the arrangement for food and drink sales between LI and BFC  and b) there seems to be no basis for the figure anyway, like comparables at other clubs.You can't invent something and say 'prove it is wrong', it is up to you to show it has some basis behind it.

Michael Robinson ● 22m

How do you work that out? There were just four games in the Euros and they were all just shy of full capacity. I did try to get tickets for some and they showed as sold out but local schools seemed to have been given lots of £5 tickets. An understandable attempt to build a legacy from the tournament. If you take into account UEFA's notoriously ungenerous revenue share and the relatively low F&B from the games then that made me assume the revenue from these fixtures was quite low and it was done as a prestige thing. If there's something wrong in my assumptions, happy to admit an error.

Andrew OSullivan ● 1h

Thanks.  Hosting the Women's Euros appears to have been a lot more lucrative for Brentford than hosting London Irish.

Michael Robinson ● 2h

The figure comes from the group strategic review issued with the accounts

Andrew OSullivan ● 3h

Andrew, where are you getting the figure of £2.9M revenue from non-Brentford FC facilities from? I've just skimmed the 22/23 and 23/24 reports and couldn't see reference to such a figure.  I just skimmed them so I may have missed. The 22/23 report has the following breakdown of revenue:

Michael Robinson ● 4h

I didn't look at the bad debt situation in the Brentford accounts but they booked £2.9million from revenue gained from non-Brentford FC facilities at the ground. I assume they would have qualified the figure if there was going to be a significant write off associated with it. Brentford could make Irish make good any missed payments as a condition of a new tenancy. If ground rent for Irish was £600,000 then conservatively they were bringing in £1.5million from other sources related to the deal. Perhaps there is a share of ticket sales but most of this must come from food and beverage at the ground. I didn't normally linger at the stadium after Irish games but once, as the Covid lockdown was just being lifted, I went to have a drink at one of the bars in the stadium. It was so rammed you could barely get through the door. I have been to the bars after football matches and they were relatively quiet. The confidence with which you assert that this deal isn't going to happen suggests you are talking to people in the know, so I am going to have to live with my hopes of an Irish return being dashed. However, it is frustrating because the arrangement seems to have been in the interest of both parties. Brentford's salary plus amortisation bill is currently the lowest in the Premier League and under a quarter of what Chelsea's is at the moment. This is testament to brilliant management and player recruitment but, as I said before, this is a tight rope. It takes just one serious injury or one player failing to settle in England for the system's weaknesses to be revealed. One or both of Wissa and Mbuemo have to go this year and they have to be replaced by players that are both cheap to buy and aren't asking for a high salary. Brentford are not the only club looking for this sort of player.

Andrew OSullivan ● 7h

The rent was in the region of 600k per season,and LI owed  Brentford money when they went bust.

Peter Cozens ● 1d

Not sure I agree with the statement that attendance were 'surprisingly poor'. The club came to Brentford during the pandemic and were in the process of establishing themselves but even so managed to attract bigger gates than they did at the Madjedski. The averages attendance for their last season is a bit deceptive because two games were scheduled on the same day as internationals. The last game I went to there was in 2022 and over 10,000 people turned up for an evening fixture against Saracens and a number of games that season brought in over 13,000.If the club does have to compete in the Championship before getting back to the top tier, there would obviously be a season of relatively low attendances but second tier games were hosted at the Madjedski when Irish were relegated. If Irish are covering Brentford's costs for this transition I don't see the risk here.Obviously a lot depends on the business plan and the level of investment that the Jordan group are bringing in but if you accept Andrew's estimate that the partnership provided £2.5million of extra revenue to Brentford the year before last, then the chances are that in the 2026/27 that would be significantly exceeded. I still struggle to understand how they would pass this up unless they had alternative uses for the stadium planned that would bring in an equivalent amount of revenue.

Francis Rowe ● 1d

Francis,As I understand it there is no chance of rugby being played at the Gtech while Brentford are in the Premier League..Another factor was the surprisingly poor attendances when LI did play at the Gtech.Certain fixed costs have to be met and the commercial match day revenue was lower than hoped.Unless LI are admitted back into the Premiership their crowds will be even lower.Disappointing for the local publicans as the Irish always spent a lot more than the Bees fans!

Peter Cozens ● 1d

Peter, as you seem to be telling us you have the inside track on this, we probably need to accept that you are right.I would say however that the numbers presented by Andrew make a compelling case for exploiting the non-footballing revenue potential of the GTech. I'm not sure I see why rugby is a problem as the club achieved its highest Premier League finish and highest league finish in the post-war period on a pitch on which both sports were being played. If rugby is ruled out then they may be looking at hosting music events there. As I understand it the stadium was configured in a way that would allow this to happen but isn't current licensed for it to do so.

Francis Rowe ● 2d

Sorry to disappoint you Andrew but I know 100% there will be no rugby played at the GTech.

Peter Cozens ● 2d

Brentford's accounts for last year have just been published. There is a good summary on the front page but it is probably worth looking at the details to get a complete understanding of what is going on. Despite the fall into losses, the club looks pretty sound. Some of the purchases made were a response to an injury problem and the Toney sale will be booked next year. However the cost base is going up and so I would say this confirms the tightrope aspect of the way they operate. We learn for the first time, I think, how much was coming in from London Irish. Renting the ground brought in £2.9million the previous year and, after making a guess at the proportion attributable to the Women's Euros, the rugby ground share accounted for £2.5million per annum. This seems small for a club now regularly spending £20million on players but it is recurring and guaranteed. However, if Thomas Frank thinks that a poor pitch will cost his team four or five points then the club may decide to pass. I'd still say better than even that they go for it. 

Andrew OSullivan ● 3d

While nobody can dispute how right Brentford have got this over the years, I wouldn't call it a great model, it's a tightrope which they have successfully managed to stay up on. After Mbeumo there may also be profits from Wissa and Schade but the Bees aren't in the championship anymore and can't just recruit players from second tier European sides or youth teams. The more recent purchases have a higher cost and Thiago and Carvalho, while great players, have yet to justify their fees. It can't be assumed that Brentford will always find the perfect replacement for the players they sell and, with their purchase costs going up, the chance of future windfall profits are much reduced and there is a risk good players need to be sold to cover losses.  As a fan you can believe in the process and trust that Brentford will continue to get it right. Most football supporters like what Brentford are doing and want it to continue to work but just in case it doesn't, securing a guaranteed annual revenue stream from hiring out the stadium looks prudent.

Andrew OSullivan ● 3d

Not that rare,add in Benrahma  and Raya both sold  for around 30 million and signed when Brentford were in the Championship. Next off the conveyor belt  probably Mbeumo who will be the highest value sale in Brentford’s history. It’s a great model.

Peter Cozens ● 3d

What you say is correct Peter but the example of a full amortised player being sold towards the end of his contract is  rare. Olly Watkins was a bullseye but that deal is working its way out of the PSR/Squad Cost calculations. The Toney deal will boost the clubs ratios again but this trick needs to be repeated again and again, and with many clubs copying this model, it will become more difficult. The clubs has spent a lot on players in recent years and while recruitment has been good, injuries could mean that some of these transfers result in big write offs. As an aside the sell on clauses are not included in PSR calculations so Brentford make even more from this point of view than you suggest. The system is designed to encourage investment in academies and Brentford need to develop a revenue pipeline from this source. In the meantime, although facilities rental fees may be small, they at least give a reliable revenue stream. 

Andrew OSullivan ● 4d

Actually Andrew the rules look at the amortised value of a player only.Obviously home grown players have no cost,but take the case of Ollie Watkins,bought for 1.8 million from Exeter,written down to zero over four years and then sold for 32 million.Pure profit less the sell on clause due to Exeter of 3.3 million.

Peter Cozens ● 4d

Thank you Andrew for your enlightening knowledge of player transfers, and Brentford's clever and successful use of the present rules.Re Man City it is thought they were falsifying some of their sponsorship deals which I'm sure you are aware.

Denis I. Fox ● 4d

PSR doesn't look at profitability but sustainability and money gained from transfers is only fully counted for players the club has developed themselves. The B team strategy of buying overlooked players who had gone through other academy systems has been massively successful but Brentford needed to bring back the academy due to PSR and the ambition to play in Europe. This is expensive and it takes a long time for an academy to generate a return by developing saleable players. It is absolutely right to say that Brentford is well run but the system works against the methods they have used so they may not be as comfortable as it would appear from the outside particularly with the rules tightening up next year. Under the rules as they are and will be, any revenue that is generated with a deal with London Irish would be available to spend on the first team squad and, while it might not even be enough to fund a whole player, it would give a constrained management a bit of extra leeway.

Andrew OSullivan ● 5d

I find it amusing to find Manchester City as one of only 4 clubs last year to show a profit.Their success on the field is undisputed, but they have incurred 115 alleged breaches of the leagues financial rules; the long awaited verdict expected in the spring.No such distractions apply to Brentford, whose performances on the field and affairs off it do this small club proud.

Denis I. Fox ● 5d

Brentford have reinstated the academies along with their very successful B Team model.Clever recruiting and player trading see them as only one of four teams who made a profit in the Premier League last year.Bournemouth,Brighton and Man City being the others.Sorry but there is no chance rugby will be returning to the Gtech.

Peter Cozens ● 5d

I doubt compassion will come into it but Wasps are already forming plans for a return possibly with a groundshare with Charlton and they could be looking at applying to the championship next season. The existing clubs championship clubs will resist, even more so if that is being considered as an option for Irish. The current structure with fewer truly professional teams has probably helped English rugby in the short term with a reduced number of highly competitive fixtures cutting injuries and a concentration of talent helping English teams in European competitions but financially it is probably unsustainable and the authorities will be keen to get at least two more viable professional teams up and running as quickly as possible.

Andrew OSullivan ● 6d

I believe Irish, Wasps and  Worcester Warriors, if fulfilling the required criteria, be allowed back into the second tier.Wasps, European Champions in 2004 and 2007 would certainly deserve such compassion after falling into bankruptcy.

Denis I. Fox ● 6d

My only hope is that Eddie Jordan lives long enough to see his dream become reality. He is 76 now and has advanced prostate and bladder cancer and the latest scans reveal the spread to his spine and other organs.  I do hope that the Irish return is somewhat easier than that of London Welsh who still languish on the fringes of the main leagues some six or seven years after reformation.

N V Brooks ● 6d

There are a lot of very confident pronouncements in this thread but I don't think anybody, even those closely associated with the clubs would be able to say exactly what is going to happen here. Firstly, the idea that the money that Irish would bring into Brentford is immaterial needs more thought. PSR rules put a premium on internally generated revenue and this will become more so when the new Squad Cost rules come in. Brentford is an exceptionally well run club but the regulations work against them because they scrapped their academy therefore don't have revenue to book from home developed players. I don't know how comfortable they are within the required ceilings but extra cash from renting the ground out will help. As for Irish going into the URC, it is hard to see that as anything other than a negotiating tactic. The IRFU is already facing complaints about the way funds are distributed among the provinces and Irish rugby, although strong, doesn't have the depth to support five teams. As England probably won't pick URC players even if they are based in England, then London Irish wouldn't benefit from the salary offset of having either English or Irish internationals. On the other hand, if they do secure a stadium with a decent capacity such as the Gtech, the English Premiership will welcome them with open arms. The professional sport in this country is desperately short of cash and Irish are a unique proposition guaranteeing large crowds.  At this stage I would say there is a better than even chance of them coming to Brentford as a Gallagher Premiership team given that it suits everybody's interests and Eddie Jordan has the skills and funds to make it happen.

Andrew OSullivan ● 6d

I don't think they will be walking in to the upper tiers of the league. They will have to start at the bottom tier and work there way up the league like Richmond and London Scottish have had to do.

Brian Green ● 6d

Since chelsea women play all games at stamford bridge i would have thought the stadium they once used before would be ideal for a championship club for nowWheatsheaf Park

Julian Pavey ● 6d

On the face of it London Irish are fortunate beneficiaries to have Formula 1 chief Eddie Jordon coming to their rescue, but without a pitch to play on they are stumped.One solution would be to become tenants at Sixways, Worcester's unused, but brilliant rugby stadiun.The Irish are used, after all to playing out of town when travelling to Reading for their home matches before administration reared its ugly head.

Denis I. Fox ● 7d

London Irish's previous deal was signed when Brentford were in the Championship and needed the extra cash. Now the Bees are in the Premier League, and having seen the previous wear on the pitch, I'd say it's very unlikely that rugby will be returning to the Gtech.

Alex Cavell ● 7d

The lights have been used again this year so the reseeding has been necessary despite the absence of rugby but I accept that the priority has to be maintaining the surface for football.The English League require ground sizes of at least 11,000 and I don't think there is another venue in west London that would be available and meet that requirement. Ealing have been kept out of the Premiership due to this stipulation. The fact that they haven't done a deal with Brentford for a ground share does support your view that a return of London Irish is unlikely.

Francis Rowe ● 7d

I would think there is no chance of London Irish returning to the Gtech.It wasn’t economically viable for Brentford,and the pitch is so much better since they left.As they will be in the Championship at best I would have thought a much smaller venue would be appropriate.

Peter Cozens ● 7d

How did the Brentford pitch stand up to doubling up for rugby and football ? I suspect if London Irish do return there, there may be a need to keep the pitch lights on more often. I recall there were issues with preparing the pitch for football at the Coventry Building Society Arena when Wasps were playing rugby there.

Richard Greenhough ● 7d